Ond fe allai Gordon Brown ddod o hyd i fwy o arian byth petai yn mynd ar ôl nid yn unig dynion sengl yn eu 40au ond hefyd rhai o unigolion cyfoethocaf y wladwriaeth. Maen nhw yn chwarae'r gêm fel eu bod nhw'n talu'r nesaf peth at ddim mewn trethi. Pobol yw'r rhain sydd yn werth miliynau o bunnoedd.
Mewn rhifyn diweddar o'r New statesman, 7 Mawrth 2005, fe ysgrifennodd John Kampfer erthygl ddiddorol am hyn i gyd o dan y teitl 'Bling, bling'. Dyma ychydig o baragraffau o ddechrau'r erthygl honno.
It's the super-rich who have done best under Labour. The top one per cent have seen their wealth rise at a rate that the rest of us can barely comprehend. Introduction by John KampfnerMae'n werth cael gafael ar yr erthygl gyfan i ddarllen am yr agwedd hon ar bolisi'r blaid Lafur.
One group in society has never had it so good. Under this government the super-rich, the top 1 per cent, have seen their wealth rise at a rate that others cannot begin to comprehend. Thanks to policies pursued (or not pursued) by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, these people give away a far smaller share of their income back to the state than the rest of us.
When Peter Mandelson declared new Labour was "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich" perhaps voters did not appreciate how true it was. During the 2001 election campaign, Blair told Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman: "It's not a burning ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money." And though Gordon Brown, according to his aides, is seriously unrelaxed about excessive and unproductive wealth, he has failed, in his eight years at the Treasury, to introduce a significant measure that deals with the very rich.
Labour's record on the poor is commendable. Tax credits focused on child and pensioner poverty, the minimum wage, Sure Start and other measures have made a difference. Apart from the very bottom 2 per cent - usually the unemployed without children and the elderly who do not claim their means-tested benefits - the lowest fifth of society have seen their income rise modestly and steadily. The income gap between them and the reasonably or quite well-off has shrunk slightly - or at least not grown. But as the Cabinet Office's strategic audit concluded recently, when you take into account wealth accrued from property, the gap continues to grow.
It is only when you look at the very top end that the scale of inequality is properly understood. According to Tony Atkinson of Oxford University, the UK's leading expert on inequality, the top 1 per cent of the population now receive more of the nation's income than at any time since the 1930s.
The Office for National Statistics reports that this group of 600,000 people doubled its wealth to £797bn in Labour's first six years. The share of national wealth taken by these super-rich has grown from 20 to 23 per cent, while the share of the poorest 50 per cent shrank from 10 per cent in 1986 to 5 per cent in 2002.
